be considered premature considering there are still real problems in the middle east if you look at syria, where the u.s. is at r.f.k. for being drawn into a serious conflict there with weapons? there's obviously real concerns about iran as well. is the shift occurring before the job is done in the middle east? >> well, i would go back to the president's strategy on this and take a look at it. did not say that we would shift everything we have in the military or in across our government into the asia pacific. it prioritized the asia pacific, but it also talked about an enduring reerment for us to be present and in a security role in the middle east as well. worry talking about a near-term perspective on this. yes, the middle east has issues and has historically had issues that will require -- obviously u.s. leadership, but also will require a certain level of military security over time. and we will have to balance that, as we look at the size and nature of our structure, and once we have the assets we have to be able to accomplish it, but i'm convinced that we can do both in the long run